President Donald Trump on Thursday renewed pressure on Tehran by saying Washington expects an agreement with Iran “in about a month,” and warning that failure to reach a deal would invite “very serious” and “very painful” consequences for the Islamic Republic. His remarks came a day after a lengthy meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said Mr. Trump believes a deal is possible but expressed personal skepticism about its quality.
Tehran pushed back on the notion that a back‑channel had already delivered U.S. proposals. Ali Larijani, secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and an adviser to the supreme leader, said Iran had not transmitted any message to Washington; rather, Omani officials had recorded points raised by the Americans and handed those notes to Tehran for consideration. Larijani added that both sides are willing to continue talks but need internal consultations first to ensure negotiations can produce results.
The exchanges underline a familiar pattern of brinkmanship: public deadlines and threats coupled with indirect diplomacy through regional intermediaries. U.S. pressure has been reinforced by a heavier military posture in the Gulf, including the deployment of the carrier Abraham Lincoln and preparations for a second carrier strike group, gestures intended to back the diplomatic push with credible coercion.
Israel’s intervention complicates the bargaining space. Netanyahu demanded that any deal must meet “crucial” Israeli security demands — no Iranian nuclear weapons, a halt to uranium enrichment, limits on ballistic missiles and an end to support for regional proxies such as Hezbollah and the Houthis. Those red lines, widely echoed in Israeli media, suggest that Washington faces both Tehran’s resistance and Israeli demands for deeper constraints than Iran has so far indicated it will accept.
The current diplomatic moment follows indirect nuclear talks held in Oman on Feb. 6. Both Washington and Tehran signalled afterwards that talks could continue, but the atmosphere remains fraught: public ultimatums raise the political cost of compromise for each side, while a visible U.S. military buildup increases the risk that miscalculation could turn threats into kinetic action.
For international audiences the stakes are clear. A rushed timetable that squeezes Iran and primes allied expectations for punitive measures could either force a rapid, fragile agreement or accelerate a slide toward confrontation. Energy markets, regional proxy conflicts and the broader U.S. position in the Middle East would all be affected by whichever path unfolds.
Watch for a few immediate indicators: whether Oman or another mediator conveys a formal U.S. draft to Tehran, signals from Iran’s Supreme Leader and hardline factions about acceptability, Israel’s willingness to tolerate concessions, and any further U.S. force movements in the Gulf. Each will reveal whether diplomacy can outpace the pressure campaign or whether the current rhetoric is a prelude to harsher measures.